Proving Biconditional Equivalence

  • Thread starter Thread starter maxsthekat
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the biconditional equivalence !(p <-> q) = (p <-> !q). The user Max employs various logical laws, including the biconditional law and DeMorgan's theorem, to manipulate both sides of the equation. Despite reaching a point of confusion, Max confirms the equivalence through truth tables. A suggestion is made to utilize distributive properties to further simplify the right-hand side expression.

PREREQUISITES
  • Biconditional logic and its laws
  • DeMorgan's theorem
  • Implication law in propositional logic
  • Truth tables for logical equivalence
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of distributive properties in logical expressions
  • Practice constructing truth tables for complex logical statements
  • Explore advanced topics in propositional logic
  • Review the implications of biconditional statements in mathematical proofs
USEFUL FOR

Students of logic, mathematicians, and anyone interested in understanding logical equivalences and proofs in propositional logic.

maxsthekat
Messages
55
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I have to prove that !(p <-> q) = (p <-> !q)


2. The attempt at a solution
I started by trying to just work out what each side of the equation was. So, starting with the left hand side
!(p <-> q) = !((p->q) * (q->p)) (biconditional law)
= !((!p + q) * (!q + p)) (implication law)
= !(!p + q) + !(!q + p) (DeMorgan's theorem)
= (p * !q) + (q * !p) (DeMorgan's theorem)

Then, for the right hand side, I tried doing similarly:
(p <-> !q) = (p -> !q) * (!q -> p) (biconditional law)
= (!p + !q) * (q + p) (implication law)

But, here I get stuck... I've thought about applying DeMorgan's, but it seems like the two expressions won't be equivalent if I do this. I've verified this equivalence is true using truth tables, but the equivalence logic seems to be escaping me. Can anyone lend a hand?

Thanks! :)

-Max
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A truth table would be much faster, but if you don't want that, you-ll have to develop (!p + !q) * (q + p), using the distributivity of *.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K